What is the big deal?

I don't get why there is such an uproar over the Dover School District's decision to make a statement prior to teaching biology that evolution is a theory and as such has some unanswered questions, and that an alternative explanation is intelligent design, which is also a theory, and references books one could read to explain intelligent design.

I think there are two questions regarding evolution, which are really separate issues, first, origin of life, and second, biological diversity.

In the first issue, perhaps evolution falls most short of reasonably and fully explaining itself. Could life itself have arised spontaneously, simply a result of random chance and the interaction of chemicals and energy?

In the second, the real question becomes, can one species turn into another? I don't think there is any question that within a species variety and specialization happens, but does it turn one thing into another?

There is no evidence of or explanation for life simply appearing from non living matter, no matter what the conditions or environment. Evolution just can't asnwer this question, no matter how it's proponents try to make it fit. It is inadequate. That ought to be mentioned, in my opinion. Even if one does not voice an alternative, it is enough to just say, we don't know.

As to species, I have several thoughts. Because variety within a species is an observable phenomena, this is a little murkier, but the evidence that species evolve to something else is not an observable event. A bird remains a bird, a dog remains a canine animal, etc. The fossil record shows some existing species, and some extinct species. I have not seen any clear and convincing evidence of evolution in the fossil record, simply extinct and non extinct species. Dinosaurs are extinct, some of those dinosaurs had flight. The fact that there were flighted dinos does not prove that those evolved to birds any more than swimming dinos became fish. Often a creature which is presented as a precursor to something else is a creature which still exists, such as coelacanth, which begs the question, if it evolved in to land vertabrates, why is it still around? Didn't it become something else, and if not, then, well, why say it did? Isn't evolution survival of the fittest? If something evolved into something better, then the first thing should be supplanted by the second. Precursor forms should not still be around. There are many other issues I am not qualified to expound upon, but involve the amount of time needed to statistically make such immense changes reasonably possible (keeping in mind this is an unguided, random process) being stastically absurd, chemical processes do not extrapolate to biological processes, and yet biological evolution is extrapolated to include chemical processes in it's explanation of how life came about and evolved, and the simple fact that things do not become more orderly over time, they become less orderly, more chaotic, if left to their own devices. Evolution as a progressive process resulting in orderly prgression of species does not make sense.

Anyway, there are questions, and the fact that there are questions should be enough to warrant some kind of statement that notes the fact. Unfortunately, those who view evolution as the answer to all lifes questions are unwilling to even consider any chink in the armor. We are to ingore the man behind the curtain, and simply nod our heads in assent or risk the wrath of those who would say that any one who could question the veracity of evolution must have shit for brains.